Everyone knows that Japan has apologized and continues to do so once a year or so. The problem is not that they have not apologized but that every Korean prime minister wants to hear a new apology in person - dismissing every other apology made in the past.

If this is so, I wonder what happens when you take a loan from a Korean...

Its no different to having to provide a new criminal background check over and over.

I mean....you're not stupid Steelrails. I've read your posts, but you're either ignorant or a liar.

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

Everyone knows that Japan has apologized and continues to do so once a year or so. The problem is not that they have not apologized but that every Korean prime minister wants to hear a new apology in person - dismissing every other apology made in the past

Actually they haven't. They issue "Statements of Regret" which, diplomatically, are not the same things as formal apologies. Think the legalistic apologies you get from corporations that don't admit formal wrongdoing.

That being said, I can't blame the Japanese for only issuing those statements. Doing so could open themselves up to all kinds of legal and diplomatic hassles.

Most importantly, what in the world does the current Emperor have to do with the past? Unless the precocious youth was giving orders to IJA soldiers at the time, even then he'd still be a juvenile. It's one thing to seek compensation for victim's of crimes, its another to demand full formal apologies from someone who had nothing to do with the situation at hand and wasn't even an adult at the time.

This is a rather bellicose statement from President Lee. I can't see the Japanese people taking it too well. Put it this way- It's one thing to demand an apology from Gordon Brown or David Cameron, it's quite another to demand that Queen Elizabeth II apologize. Monarchs tend to be a more sensitive issue for nations. He's overplaying his hand.

I mean....you're not stupid Steelrails. I've read your posts, but you're either ignorant or a liar.

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

Everyone knows that Japan has apologized and continues to do so once a year or so. The problem is not that they have not apologized but that every Korean prime minister wants to hear a new apology in person - dismissing every other apology made in the past

Actually they haven't. They issue "Statements of Regret" which, diplomatically, are not the same things as formal apologies. Think the legalistic apologies you get from corporations that don't admit formal wrongdoing.

That being said, I can't blame the Japanese for only issuing those statements. Doing so could open themselves up to all kinds of legal and diplomatic hassles.

Most importantly, what in the world does the current Emperor have to do with the past? Unless the precocious youth was giving orders to IJA soldiers at the time, even then he'd still be a juvenile. It's one thing to seek compensation for victim's of crimes, its another to demand full formal apologies from someone who had nothing to do with the situation at hand and wasn't even an adult at the time.

This is a rather bellicose statement from President Lee. I can't see the Japanese people taking it too well. Put it this way- It's one thing to demand an apology from Gordon Brown or David Cameron, it's quite another to demand that Queen Elizabeth II apologize. Monarchs tend to be a more sensitive issue for nations. He's overplaying his hand.

You have to read into the wording of the statements.

Most of them express regret "for the suffering of the people" NOT the actions committed by the Japanese.

And as has been mentioned, the few that do are either not a formal apology by the government, but rather a statement by an individual OR are followed by denials from the Diet.

Also as a Constitutional Monarchy, that was something more than that during the war (the Emperor was a diety), there is something to be said for responsibility with the ruling house, though I am indifferent about that.

Let's look at the famed "Muryama Declaration"

Quote:

Japan's actions in a certain period of the past not only claimed numerous victims here in Japan but also left the peoples of neighboring Asia and elsewhere with scars that are painful even today. I am thus taking this opportunity to state my belief, based on myprofound remorse for these acts of aggression, colonial rule, and the like caused such unbearable suffering and sorrow for so many people, that Japan's future path should be one of making every effort to build world peace in line with my no-war commitment. It is imperative for us Japanese to look squarely to our history with the peoples of neighboring Asia and elsewhere. Only with solid basis of mutual understanding and confidence that can be built through overcoming the pain on both sides, can we and the peoples of neighboring countries together clear up the future of Asia-Pacific.... On the issue of wartime 'comfort women,' which seriously stained the honor and dignity of many women, I would like to take this opportunity once again to express my profound and sincere remorse and apologies. With regard to this issue as well, I believe that one way of demonstrating such feelings of apologies and remorse is to work to further promote mutual understanding with the countries and areas concerned as well as to face squarely to the past and ensure that it is rightly conveyed to future generations. This initiative, in this sense, has been drawn up consistent with such belief

If you parse his words carefully you'll see "remorse", which is not the same diplomatically as an apology often used.

Also he offers "my apology" rather than an apology for the government.

As for actions of the Japanese, he doesn't spell them out. He just says "It is imperative for us to look squarely at our history"

In regards to comfort women his apology is for "the issue" and the "stain" endured, without specifically enumerating what was involved.

Quote:

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, this House offers its sincere condolences to those who fell in action and victims of wars and similar actions all over the world. Solemnly reflecting upon many instances of colonial rule and acts of aggression in the modern history of the world, and recognizing that Japan carried out those acts in the past, inflicting pain and suffering upon the peoples of other countries, especially in Asia, the Members of this House express a sense of deep remorse

Again, remorse.

Quote:

During a certain period in the not-too-distant past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly those of Asia. In the hope that no such mistake will be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humanity, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology

Again, my apology.

You might think this is nitpicking or reading too far into things, but these are diplomatic statements filled with legalese. The difference between apology, condolences, remorse, accepting responsibility, and similar statements is significant in government statements. They each carry different weight.

Similarly with a personal apology by a government official vs. a statement like "On behalf of the Japanese nation/people".

You'll also notice a different acknowledgement of responsibility when it comes to the United States and the U.K. vs. Japan, Korea, the Philippines, etc. Basically, the more influential the nation, the greater the number of statements. The fact that the U.S. can actually get formal government apologies for specific actions, and the Philippines gets vague statements and limited acknowledgment, confirms to many in Asia what the true feelings and views of the Japanese are. (Whether that is true or not, that's how it's perceived)

Notice how leaders won't hesitate to say something like "On behalf of the United States, we welcome you to the White House" during jolly diplomatic photo-ops. Now to find a statement like that in regards to some calamity that some might call war crimes? Always the ephemeral "we" or "I" or phrases like "condolences".

Anyone who studies International Relations and the like understands the significance or these kinds of wordings. You really have to read between the lines to understand what they mean, but those that do understand recognize what is truly being said.

Think this is all just hot air? World War III hung on the difference between the words "Blockade" and "Quarantine", even though America for all practical effect was blockading Cuba, that fact that diplomatically it was declared that the Organization of American States was issuing a "quarantine" gave it diplomatic legitimacy and limited the Soviet position.

Now, as I said, I don't see any reason for the current Emperor to apologize, but to say that Japan has "done its best" to apologize is a farce. One need only look at the actions and statements of Germany vs. Japan to see a significant disparity. It doesn't help that the statements have basically had to be wrung out of Japan where as the Germans were rather desperate to do anything to wash their hands of blood.

You might think this is nitpicking or reading too far into things, but these are diplomatic statements filled with legalese.

You're being selective in your reality Steel. In the list I provided it clearly shows signs of the Japanese apologizing.

For example:

Quote:

April 18, 1990. Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Nakayama. "Japan is deeply sorry for the tragedy in which these (Korean) people were moved to Sakhalin not of their own free will but by the design of the Japanese government and had to remain there after the conclusion of the war" (188th National Diet Session Lower House Committee of Foreign Affairs).

Quote:

January 1, 1992. Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa. "[Concerning the comfort women,] I apologize from the bottom of my heart and feel remorse for those people who suffered indescribable hardships" (Press conference).

Quote:

2001. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (Also signed by all the prime ministers since 1995, including Ryutaro Hashimoto, Keizō Obuchi, Yoshirō Mori). "As Prime Minister of Japan, I thus extend anew my most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women. We must not evade the weight of the past, nor should we evade our responsibilities for the future. I believe that our country, painfully aware of its moral responsibilities, with feelings of apology and remorse, should face up squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future generations" (Letter from Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to the former comfort women)

I mean, it's almost comical how you and others just refuse to acknowledge that Japan has apologized countless times (not to mention already paid reparations).

In fact the majority of Koreans believe that Japan has never made efforts to apologize when this is simply not the case.

Let's face fact, no matter what Japan does, the Koreans will never be happy.

It's a part of Korean national culture to play the victim and without the Japanese bogeyman, Koreans will lack an outsider to blame and have to look at themselves.

There are currently slave labor camps in North Korea. The human rights situation is terrible.

Yet, the Korean government, media and general population would rather focus on past actions of people that are now gone from this Earth.

Sorry, but you're reading on the surface and not between the lines and not with an eye to the legalise.

Let's look at your examples.

Quote:

April 18, 1990. Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Nakayama. "Japan is deeply sorry for the tragedy in which these (Korean) people were moved to Sakhalin not of their own free will but by the design of the Japanese government and had to remain there after the conclusion of the war" (188th National Diet Session Lower House Committee of Foreign Affairs).

This is a very narrow incident and one that is likely to have a very limited scope and effect. A forcible movement to Sakhalin is pretty low on the list of things Japan did.

Quote:

Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa. "[Concerning the comfort women,] I apologize from the bottom of my heart and feel remorse for those people who suffered indescribable hardships

Read the sentence again. He apologizes and describes his feelings. The apology is personal, not official.

Also he doesn't apologize for wrongdoing or actions, he feels remorse for those people who suffered hardships. In other words, "I'm sorry you feel bad."

Quote:

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (Also signed by all the prime ministers since 1995, including Ryutaro Hashimoto, Keizō Obuchi, Yoshirō Mori). "As Prime Minister of Japan, I thus extend anew my most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women. We must not evade the weight of the past, nor should we evade our responsibilities for the future. I believe that our country, painfully aware of its moral responsibilities, with feelings of apology and remorse, should face up squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future generations"

That statement is a bit of a laugher because in his attempt to face up squarely, he refuses to do just that.

He apologizes on behalf of his office, not the nation. A nice gesture. Again he does not focus on the actions of the Japanese but rather the feelings of the victims.

In the bolded part he talks about accepting responsibility, but that section is in fact, disconnected from the first part as there is nothing that specifically acknowledges accepting responsibility for actions int he first part.

"I believe that our country, painfully aware of its moral responsibilities, with feelings of apology and remorse, should face up squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future generations."

Does this mean you are apologizing for war crimes?

"I believe that our country, painfully aware of its moral responsibilities, with feelings of apology and remorse, should face up squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future generations."

So are you apologizing?

"I believe that our country, painfully aware of its moral responsibilities, with feelings of apology and remorse, should face up squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future generations"

Quote:

I mean, it's almost comical how you and others just refuse to acknowledge that Japan has apologized countless times (not to mention already paid reparations).

In fact the majority of Koreans believe that Japan has never made efforts to apologize when this is simply not the case.

Dude, take it from someone who studied International Relations. The way the statements are phrased is very specific. Anyone who knows how to read legalise and official statements knows the scope of the statements and whether they are statements of remorse or apologies or what else.

What you think these are just off the cuff statements? These are carefully prepared documents understanding the potential legal consequences of issuing formal apologies and accepting responsibility and not wanting to be liable.

Also, it must be asked, is an apology sincere if it has to be dragged out of a person?

I think the Germans come across as sincere in their desire to apologize. The Japanese don't quite have that air about them. The Germans apologize without prompting. The Japanese do so only after years of wrangling.

Quote:

Yet, the Korean government, media and general population would rather focus on past actions of people that are now gone from this Earth.

It's a joke.

To the family of the people involved, millions of whom are still alive, I don't think it's a joke.

Obviously the Japanese government isn't going to apologize "sincerely". There is probably no government in the history of the world that would be sincere about such a thing. I would even go as far as to wager the Korean government itself cares about as little about the plight of comfort women as the Japanese government does. Politicians by-and-large are a pack of greedy, lying scum who think of the public as nothing more than a swinish multitude and would say anything to further their own personal ends; it's to be expected.

But that aside, the Japanese government has clearly apologized. Your objection to the "phrasing" of it is just plain ludicrous. Even if what you say has merit (which it probably doesn't), and the phrasing is all that stands between the government and a tidal wave of legal liabilities, then I don't blame the Japanese government for avoiding it one bit. The real point, however, is that some Koreans feel that they deserve a "sincere" apology from "Japan" (whatever that means). Since it's impossible, it's NEVER going to happen, so time to move on already. Moreover, the mere idea that the government speaks for "all the people of Japan" (99% of whom had nothing to do with the crimes in question) is also ludicrous.

Obviously the Japanese government isn't going to apologize "sincerely". There is probably no government in the history of the world that would be sincere about such a thing. I would even go as far as to wager the Korean government itself cares about as little about the plight of comfort women as the Japanese government does. Politicians by-and-large are a pack of greedy, lying scum who think of the public as nothing more than a swinish multitude and would say anything to further their own personal ends; it's to be expected.

No argument here. Politicians are scum

Quote:

But that aside, the Japanese government has clearly apologized.

It has issued statements of regret. It has apologized for the feelings and situations. It has stated its remorse. Individuals have apologized. It is specifically avoiding apologizing for its actions.

Quote:

Your objection to the "phrasing" of it is just plain ludicrous. Even if what you say has merit (which it probably doesn't)

Actually it has complete merit. Talk to any international relations expert or anyone involved in the diplomatic sphere and they'll take the same reading of the statement as I did.

Look, just because you guys aren't learned enough in this area, and that the statement doesn't say what you wish it said, doesn't change what's in the statement.

May I ask then, why in their apology didn't the Japanese say "We apologize for the war crimes committed against Korean civilians by our troops. We apologize for incident X on date Y" Why the carefully worded statements?

Quote:

then I don't blame the Japanese government for avoiding it one bit

I don't either. Makes perfect rational sense.

But don't tell me that they have offered sincere and full apologies because they haven't. They've worded things carefully to avoid any entanglements in terms of responsibility. I don't blame them one bit for it.

But some people on this board seem to think a "statement of regret" or the Japanese Prime Minister extending "his" apologies are the same thing as the Japanese Government apologizing. They aren't.

Law and legalism often revolves around specific wording. The term "distinct" comes to mind. Words have distinct meanings even though they may appear very similar. Just because you think and you wish "remorse" and "apology" are the same thing, doesn't make them so in the diplomatic sphere.

I sat through hours of lectures of professors in International Relations or International Law courses studying these kinds of statements and learning to understand their true meaning.

Quote:

The real point, however, is that some Koreans feel that they deserve a "sincere" apology from "Japan" (whatever that means). Since it's impossible, it's NEVER going to happen, so time to move on already.

Maybe they should maybe they shouldn't. If they lived through a wrong or their immediate family members dealt with the consequences I can see them acting on justice.

Or do you believe there should be a statue of limitations on murder, rape, and war crimes?

Quote:

Moreover, the mere idea that the government speaks for "all the people of Japan" (99% of whom had nothing to do with the crimes in question) is also ludicrous.

In one sense yes and one sense no. Obviously to the extent that 99% of Japanese people now living had little or nothing to do with the war effort, it doesn't represent them when apologizing.

On the other hand, it is the elected government with its Constitutional Monarch still in power. As with all governments it issues statements on its behalf and in its capacity as the officially recognized government of Japan.

As I state in my original post, I don't think the Emperor should apologize.

But I do take exception to those who describe the apologies as "Real apologies" and sincere. If you read the statements with a proper understanding of their meaning and context, then you understand he scope of their statements.

Heck, my opinion on whether Japan should fully apologize is that in the world of realpolitik they have behaved as they should. And the Koreans are behaving as they should. And one could make a case for the Japanese apologizing and make a case for the Koreans dropping the issue.

So, if Japan hires you to word the next formal apology - and they release/make it now, you think Korea/China will accept it?

Won't they say that it wasn't 'sincere' enough, especially given the recent protests held in both of these countries? (the narrative is such that Japan got scared and has issued an apology only due to fear).

Sincere.... is something that refers to one's true thoughts and emotions - how do you judge/measure that? Furthermore, how can you expect the whole nation to 'sincerely' apologize? After all, anytime a Japanese scholar states that Japan was innocent, new calls for a national apology emerge.

Actions would accompany it. Opening up of war records, dismantling of memorials, releasing of funds for restitution and compensation, perhaps even a formal "bow" apology by Government officials. A royal decree from the Emperor. And of course, properly worded statements.

Basically do what Germany has done, minus the Emperor stuff of course, but with an eye towards Asian context. Notice how there is no "Nazi War Dead" shrine. Merkel doesn't visit the grave of German soldiers who died on the plains of Festung Europa and honor them. When they do honor former German soldiers the government is extremely careful about it and only chooses those who did not commit war crimes.

Of course if I was hired to advise on such a matter, while I'd desire to see a truly healing moment where that happened and the governments of China, Taiwan, Korea, Philippines, etc. came together to accept the apology and bury the hatchet, the realist in me would advise against such a move as it would be interpreted as a sign of weakness and at least one of the parties would manipulate such an event to their advantage.

One can say with confidence that the German government and people are genuinely sorry over their role in WWII. They have been proactive in trying to make amends. The Japanese government? Meh. They haven't done much wrong, but haven't really tried to do much right.

No doubt followed by Dokdo/Takeshima claim abandonment, Sea of Japan renaming to East Sea, and then possibly followed by Japan being renamed to East Korea, etc, etc. ^^

Any apology would likely be accompanied by agreement to referring such claims to international arbitration and accepting those outcomes.

But yes, there will be some people who don't "get over it". Just like plenty of fellow Irish NETs have rather strident opinions about the UK and issues there, some Koreans will insist on sticking it.

But again, I personally would never advocate for such an action, unless doing so was in the best interests of Japan. In which case I'd advocate for such an action.

Bottom Line: I don't care whether Japan apologizes or not. They could rehoist the Japanese War Flag and lay claim to Manchuria for all I care (provided that such an action seemed rational from their point of view). What I object to is people saying Japan truly apologized. It didn't. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of legalese and how diplomatic statements are worded should be able to recognize that.